NAVAL

POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

THESIS

NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNER

by

Jason F. Deleon

March 2015

Thesis Co-Advisors: W. Matthew Carlyle

Jeffrey Kline
Second Reader: Gerald G. Brown

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fonn Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 12.REPORT DATE

March 20 15
I
22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503.
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Master's Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNER
6. AUTHOR(S) Jason F. Deleon
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NA:i\tiE(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORi\tiiNG ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER
Monterey, CA 93943- 5000
9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
ONR AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Govemment. IRB Protocol number __N/A__.
12a. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is tmlimited
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)

This thesis presents Navy Operational Planner (NOP), a decision suppmt aid for mission-based maritime operational
planning. Operational plans consist of individual missions grouped into phases- we must accomplish a given fraction
of each mission in a phase to declare completion and move to the next phase. Rather than nying to achieve as many
missions as possible in a fixed time horizon, NOP advises how to allocate multiple ships to multiple missions in order
to accomplish those missions to a prescribed level of completion as quickly as possible; this allows a transition to the
next phase of a larger mission, such as a war, or a large-sca.le humanitarian aid and disaster relief operation. Knowing
how long it could take to complete a mission phase is more useful in determining feasibility in the planning process
and can help in assessing risks associated with employing a limited number of ships. Criteria for mission phase
n·ansitions are derived from assumptions stmounding mission-based accomplishment tlu·esholds. The canying out of
a mission or level of effmt applied conti-ibutes toward cumulative accomplishment. In addition, when mission effmts
are intetrupted for some pet-iod of time, the mission may require additional later effmt to resume and complete.

14. SUBJECT TERl"\IS 15. NUMBER OF

optimization, integer progranuuing, navy operational planner, maritime operational planning tool, PAGES
decision aid, navy logistics, navy mission planner, NMP, NOP 59
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF
CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF TffiS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified uu
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2- 89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ii
 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNER

Jason F. Deleon
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B.S., San Diego State University, 2002

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

March 2015

Author: Jason F. Deleon

Approved by: W. Matthew Carlyle

Thesis Co-Advisor

Jeffrey Kline
Thesis Co-Advisor

Gerald G. Brown
Second Reader

Robert F. Dell
Chair, Department of Operations Research

iii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

iv
 ABSTRACT

This thesis presents Navy Operational Planner (NOP), a decision support aid for mission-
based maritime operational planning. Operational plans consist of individual missions
grouped into phases—we must accomplish a given fraction of each mission in a phase to
declare completion and move to the next phase. Rather than trying to achieve as many
missions as possible in a fixed time horizon, NOP advises how to allocate multiple ships
to multiple missions in order to accomplish those missions to a prescribed level of
completion as quickly as possible; this allows a transition to the next phase of a larger
mission, such as a war, or a large-scale humanitarian aid and disaster relief operation.
Knowing how long it could take to complete a mission phase is more useful in
determining feasibility in the planning process and can help in assessing risks associated
with employing a limited number of ships. Criteria for mission phase transitions are
derived from assumptions surrounding mission-based accomplishment thresholds. The
carrying out of a mission or level of effort applied contributes toward cumulative
accomplishment. In addition, when mission efforts are interrupted for some period of
time, the mission may require additional later effort to resume and complete.

v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
A. NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNING ...........................................................1
1. Maritime Operations Center ..............................................................2
2. Maritime Planning ...............................................................................2
3. Navy Planning Process ........................................................................3
B. LITERATURE REVIEW OF PRIOR WORK .............................................5
1. Navy Logistics.......................................................................................5
2. Navy Mission Planner ..........................................................................6
C. A DECISION AID FOR OPERATIONAL PLANNING .............................7
II. NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNER .........................................................................9
A. DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................9
1. Mission Phase Transitions...................................................................9
2. Level-of-Effort Curves.......................................................................10
3. Mission Degradation ..........................................................................11
B. MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT MODEL................................................14
1. Sets and Indices [Cardinality]...........................................................15
2. Data [Units].........................................................................................15
3. Decision Variables [Units] .................................................................16
4. Formulation ........................................................................................17
5. Discussion............................................................................................17
III. MINE WARFARE AND SCENARIO .....................................................................19
A. MINE WARFARE .........................................................................................19
B. MCM ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................21
1. LOE Curve Derivation ......................................................................21
2. Mine Countermeasures Mission Durability ....................................23
C. SCENARIO RESULTS .................................................................................23
1. Initial Assessment...............................................................................25
2. Second Assessment .............................................................................27
3. Third Assessment ...............................................................................31
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................33
A. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................33
B. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................33
1. In-Depth Analysis in Other Mission Warfare Areas ......................33
2. Scenario Integration with NMP........................................................33
3. Adding a Logistics Component .........................................................34
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................35
A. USE OF MISSION DEFINITIONS .............................................................35
B. MISSION TYPES ..........................................................................................35
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................37
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .........................................................................................39
vii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The navy planning process (NPP) (from Department of the Navy, 2013a).......3
Figure 2. Example COA development spreadsheet table (from Department of the
Navy, 2013a) ......................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Chart showing LOE curve for a single ship conducting an MCM mission.
The (red) horizontal dotted-line indicates the 0.85 threshold for mission
accomplishment, meaning 85 percent of mines in that minefield have been
cleared. After five ship-days of effort, the LOE curve indicates that 0.60 of
the mission will be achieved. After 10 ship-days of effort, the LOE curve
indicates we will have reached the completion threshold of 85
accomplishment. ..............................................................................................11
Figure 4. Chart showing accomplishment of a single mission associated with effort
applied throughout the time horizon of the model. Continuous effort is
applied in periods t2 – t5 resulting in a total cumulative effort of
2+1+1+3=7 ship-days, which yields a fractional mission accomplishment
of 0.7. No effort occurs in periods t6 and t7, but because the cooldown is
three days, no effort (and therefore no accomplishment) is lost. The
mission accomplishment threshold of 0.8 is met in period t8. Cooldown
occurs over periods t9 – t11. The mission is therefore considered idle in
period t12, and degradation occurs at t12 at an erosion rate of two ship-
days per idle period. After period t12, enough accomplishment is lost to
fall below the completion threshold, resulting in an allocation of ships in
periods t13-t15 to re-accomplish the mission. .................................................13
Figure 5. Chart capturing LOE curve data for a mission m. Note that bm,1 = 0. Each
segment k of the LOE curve is defined by the slope (am,k) and y-intercept
(bm,k) and as bm,k increases, am,k decreases. The slope and y-intercept are
derived from the base-rate and work-size of a mission. ..................................14
Figure 6. Elements of mine warfare (from Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011a)........................20
Figure 7. Map of the Korean Peninsula area of operations (after Google Maps,
2015). ...............................................................................................................24
Figure 8. Chart showing accomplishment of mission m10 of second assessment
output. Continuous effort is applied in periods t1 and t2 and cumulative
accomplishment reaches 0.84. Cooldown occurs over periods t3-t5. The
mission is now in an idle state and degradation occurs at the start of period
t6. Activity resumes in period t12 and cumulative accomplishment has
reached the completion threshold. ...................................................................30
Figure 9. Chart showing ship activity throughout the phase. The solid (green) bars
represent how effort is applied by the ships in each mission. In periods t1
– t5, at most seven ships can be active. In periods t16 – t20, when there are
only two ships available, there are at most two ships working. The cross-
hashed (red) bars indicate when each mission has gone idle and LOE
towards mission accomplishment is degrading................................................32

ix
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. MCM ship’s search parameters and minefield area. An MCM ship has a
search speed V in nautical miles per hour (kts), search width W in nautical
miles (NM) and base-rate. The area A of the minefield is in square NMs. .....22
Table 2. Initial assessment parameters. We have seven ships available in each time
period to work on 10 missions in a 20 period time horizon. The mission
work-sizes are split where half have a work-size of one and the other half
have a work-size of two. The erosion rate is 0.05. ..........................................25
Table 3. Initial assessment output for period t6. The EFFORT column shows how
many ship-days of effort is applied to each mission at period t6. The
ACCOMP column shows the cumulative accomplishment based on the
effort applied by those ships up to the end of period t6. Each mission has
reached the completion threshold of 0.85 by the end of period t6. They are
all flagged completed as indicated in the DONE column and phase
transition can now occur. .................................................................................26
Table 4. Initial assessment output for mission m10. As effort is applied in each
time period, the ACCOMP column shows the cumulative accomplishment
achieved. Completion is accomplished in period t6 when the mission
reaches 0.85 accomplishment. There is no ship effort applied periods t2
and t3, but the mission does not go idle because no cooldown occurs has
activity resumes in period t4. ...........................................................................27
Table 5. Second assessment parameters. We increase some of the minefield work-
sizes and reduce the number of ships available in each time period. The
number of time periods is also increased to have a fewer number of ships
accomplish missions where work-sizes are larger. ..........................................28
Table 6. Second assessment output for mission m10. In periods t5 and t15, we
observe the first and second instances where the mission is idle, as
indicated in the IDLE column. As a result, we observe degradation of
cumulative effort in the CUM_EFFORT column and subsequent decrease
in accomplishment as shown in the ACCOMP column each period the
mission is in an idle state. ................................................................................29
Table 7. Third assessment parameters. We increase the mission accomplishment
erosion rate, and change the number of ships available in each time period
so that the number of ships is no longer constant. There are four ships
available in periods t1 – t15 and three ships in periods t16 – t30. ...................31

xi
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xii
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AD air defense
AO area of operations
ASW anti-submarine warfare
CAPT captain
CLF combat logistics force
COA course of action
EOD explosive ordinance disposal
GAMS general algebraic modeling system
INTEL intelligence
JFMCC Joint Force Maritime Component Commander
JP joint publication
KTS knots
LOE level of effort
MCM mine countermeasures
MIO maritime interdiction operation
MNV mine neutralization vehicle
MOC maritime operations center
MSC Military Sealift Command
MW wine warfare
NCC naval component commander
NFC numbered fleet commander
NM nautical mile
NMP Navy mission planner
NOP Navy operational planner
NPP naval planning process
NSFS naval surface fire support
NWP naval warfare publication
OPNAV N42 Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Mobility and Combat
Logistics Division
PACOM United States Pacific Command
xiii
RASP replenishment at sea planner
STRIKE strike warfare
SUW surface warfare
TBMD theater ballistic missile defense
USN United States Navy

xiv
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Navy operational planning staffs are responsible for assigning missions to naval assets in
theater to support maritime operations. This task can be daunting because of the Navy’s
ability to carry out multiple mission requirements with some ships capable of carrying
out multiple missions simultaneously. Operational plans traditionally consist of a
sequence of phases, and each phase is characterized by a set of missions. Proceeding
from one phase to the next requires that some given fraction of current-phase missions be
completed. Planners must also consider mission dependencies (or concurrencies) where
some missions must be completed before others can begin (or simultaneously begin).
Over the course of a campaign, ships will eventually have applied enough effort to
complete missions in a mission phase to enable transition to a subsequent phase.
Traditional planning efforts have been accomplished primarily without the assistance of
automated planning tools. Using only manual planning methods can be cumbersome,
time consuming and prone to error.

This thesis develops the Navy Operational Planner (NOP) mission

accomplishment model. The goal of this model is to advise how to allocate limited
resources to accomplish missions as quickly as possible to transition from one mission
phase to the next. Criteria for mission phase transitions are derived from assumptions
surrounding mission-based accomplishment thresholds. The carrying out of a mission or
level of effort applied contributes toward cumulative accomplishment. In addition, when
mission efforts are interrupted for some period of time, the mission may degrade (i.e.,
reconstitute) and require additional later effort to resume and complete.

From a set of maritime mission types considered in this thesis, the analyzed
scenario incorporates only mine warfare, specifically mine hunting mine countermeasures
(MCM). In a more complex model, multiple mission types can be incorporated to account
for a more complex scenario. Input factors specific to mine hunting MCM missions
include: sensor search speed, sensor search width, probability of detection, and area of
the minefield. Other varying factors specific to the model include: the number of
missions, degradation rate, cooldown duration (i.e., the rate at which achieved mission
xv
completion is lost if the mission is interrupted), the number of ships available in each
time period, and accomplishment threshold.

Given several scenarios with varying parameters, each analysis provides a

minimum amount of time to complete a mission phase. This is particularly useful in
assessing risk induced by limited assets. An additional asset reassigned to a mission
phase may result in a quicker phase transition. Additionally, NOP provides the progress
of each mission throughout the time horizon, giving insight into the behavior of how the
naval assets cooperatively apply effort and where mission interruption occurs to cause
mission degradation.

xvi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Professor Matt Carlyle, for your patience and guidance in directing this thesis.
Know that your commitment to students and passion for making a difference by applying
your expertise to Department of Defense related problems is the reason why Operations
Research at Naval Postgraduate School is a world-renowned program led by world-class
faculty. You have an exceptionally positive attitude and your constant encouragement
kept me motivated. I am truly grateful for the experience of working with you. Without
your support, this thesis would not have come to fruition.

To Captain Jeff Kline, for providing operational insights in helping to develop

and reinforce criteria for the key assumptions in this thesis. Your balanced combination
of maritime operational experience and academic application of campaign analysis not
only significantly contributed to my research, but to my entire experience going through
this curriculum. I appreciate your words of advice and valuable inputs throughout the
thesis process.

To Distinguished Professor Brown, for your critical view and thorough revision of
my thesis. It is an honor to learn about the history of the work with which you’ve been
involved. The breadth of experience and knowledge you bring has added much value to
my thesis.

To my family, for your unconstrained love and support. You have been a constant
variable of strength and motivation in not only helping to maximize my objective, but in
the entire formulation of my journey. Without you, the path to achieving my objective
may not have been the most optimal solution, and perhaps may have been an infeasible
one.

xvii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xviii
 I. INTRODUCTION

Military commanders can be presented with a large amount of information in

decision-making. The critical element to effective military planning is the ability to
present the right amount of detail in order to provide a commander and staff a clear path
to a desirable end state. The dynamic interaction and balance between operational factors
of space, time and force require effective planning.

Joint Publication (JP) 5–0 outlines operational design methods for planning
activities associated with military operations in a joint organization (Joint Chiefs of Staff,
2011b). The U.S. Navy incorporates and refines similar techniques in its own Navy
Planning Process (NPP), which is found in U.S. Navy Warfare Publication (NWP) 5–01
(Department of the Navy, 2013a). NWP 5–01 details the Navy planning principles for
naval component commanders (NCCs), numbered fleet commanders (NFCs) or joint
force maritime component commanders (JFMCCs) and their respective staffs within
service, joint or multinational operations (Department of the Navy, 2013a).

A. NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNING

The U.S. Navy must be able to address a full spectrum of potential scenarios
because of the uncertainty in enemy capability and threat. The scope of naval operations
spans from vast open oceans to the littorals, “and often places the lowest tactical
commander in critical strategic roles, necessitating that a thorough planning process be
used” (Department of the Navy, 2013a, pp. 1–2). Naval planning in contested
environments has shifted from threat-based planning to mission-based planning, but still
relies mostly on the fundamental requirement to establish and maintain some degree of
maritime superiority (Department of the Navy, 2013a).

1
 1. Maritime Operations Center

Maritime operations centers (MOCs) plan, command, and employ naval assets in
support of joint forces at the operational level of war. Commanders rely on their staffs’
expertise and proficiency to provide a standardized level of planning and execution
across the full range of military operations. The design and tactical employment of U.S.
naval forces has evolved with multi-mission platforms providing a wide range of
capabilities for countering threats and projecting power in the maritime domain
(Department of the Navy, 2013b). Maritime planners are constantly challenged to
maintain visibility and situational awareness as conventional and unconventional threats
continue to emerge.

2. Maritime Planning

Maritime operational planning in joint warfare addresses the daunting task of

assigning multiple maritime forces to complete multiple maritime missions across
multiple areas of operation. A limited number of ships, combined with mission
requirements that can change over the course of days or hours, compounds this task’s
difficulty. Further complexity is added when integrating logistics support with planning,
for example, the proper employment of logistics ships in support of combatants in the
area of operations. Given a set of mission completion objectives for a theater of
operations, ship assignments to these missions must consider the characteristics and
priorities of each mission, ship capabilities, ship availability, and the time and distance
between each mission.

Mission interdependencies also add to the overall complexity and can require
some prerequisite mission to be completed before subsequent ones can begin. For
example, in order to have a ship begin an amphibious assault mission, that ship might
require an air defense (AD) and/or anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission to be
completed. Developing effective assignments for large sets of ships can be daunting if the
operation lasts longer than a few days. It is especially cumbersome if it is accomplished
solely through manual planning efforts.

2
 3. Navy Planning Process

The NPP is conducted continuously and is divided into six steps (summarized in
Figure 1). As defined in NWP 5–01 (Department of the Navy, 2013a):

The NPP is the process that assists commanders and their staffs in
analyzing the operational environment and distilling a multitude of
planning information in order to provide the commander with a coherent
framework for determining the what and why (ends) as well as developing
the method for execution (ways), given the forces and resources available
(means) and the level of risk to the mission and forces.

Figure 1. The Navy planning process (from Department of the Navy, 2013a).

3
 Some planning efforts are largely accomplished by using dry-erase markers and
whiteboards, simple spreadsheets, or even butcher-block paper. For example, in step two
of the NPP—Course of Action (COA) development—planning cells frequently utilize
spreadsheets to outline a list of mission requirements and available assets. This allows the
planning cells to roughly associate assets and their capabilities with specific mission
requirements to help frame COA development, identify shortfalls, and critique space,
time and force-planning factors. A sample spreadsheet is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Example COA development spreadsheet table (from Department of

the Navy, 2013a).

4
 Given a list of required missions and available assets, this form of COA
development is insufficient if the analysis involves a large number of mission
requirements and several types of multi-mission capable ships. Manual planning can be
time consuming, prone to error, and may not be compatible with quick sensitivity and
tradeoff analysis. Planning may end up simply as a reactionary exercise where long-range
plans become low priority because it is too difficult to manage multiple ships and
multiple missions (Dugan, 2007). Commanders need the flexibility to make more
efficient decisions in planning and executing maritime force employment in a timely
manner.

B. LITERATURE REVIEW OF PRIOR WORK

In addressing potential limitations of paper planning, the Navy has continued

research in the application of scientific and mathematical approaches to develop
automated decision aids to complement and assist manual planning efforts. Recent
research from the Operations Research Department at the Naval Postgraduate School has
combined the effort of faculty and a multi-service military student body (with a wide
range of first-hand operational experience) to develop optimization- and simulation-based
decision support tools (Stewart, 2013). The continuous refinement, improvement and
evolution of these tools show a relevant need for robust approaches to maritime
operational planning.

1. Navy Logistics

The Combat Logistics Force (CLF) Planner (Brown & Carlyle, 2008) has been a
source for many theses and follow-on research. It is a logistics operational planning aide
that uses a fixed set of operational missions to optimize employment schedules for CLF
ships replenishing battle groups involved in various worldwide operational conflicts. An
integer linear program is used to evaluate whether or not anticipated missions are
supportable by CLF ships and if so, it prescribes where and how to operate those
available assets to efficiently fulfill the battle group’s logistics requirements.

Replenishment at Sea Planner (RASP) is another example of an operational

planning tool. RASP focuses on fuel conservation as it optimizes schedules for CLF
5
ships. Brown, Carlyle and Burson (2010) revamped CLF Planner to account for greater
fidelity of operational planning factors in order to meet customer requirements.
Customers who have a deep interest in and have provided support for RASP include
various maritime operational organizations such as the Chief of Naval Operations
Strategic Mobility and Combat Logistics Division (OPNAV N42), Military Sealift
Command (MSC), and United States Pacific Command (PACOM).

2. Navy Mission Planner

Dugan’s (2007) Navy Mission Planner (NMP) is a multi-ship, multi-mission

planning aid operating in a fixed time horizon in which the goal is to accomplish as many
missions as possible. Dugan explains that NMP generates near-optimal employment
schedules for surface combatant ships from a pre-defined set of mission requirements and
a finite time horizon in a specific area of operations. NMP provides an optimal selection
of employment schedules from a subset of the potentially enormous pool of feasible
schedules.

Silva (2009) extends Dugan’s NMP model by constraining the total number of
possible schedules, reducing the overall computational burden at the cost of a suboptimal
solution. He then tests it on a realistic, large-scale theater scenario involving many ships
over a planning horizon of several weeks with daily fidelity.

Further research by Hallman (2009) adds logistic planning capabilities to NMP in

order not only to evaluate when and where combatant ships should be located to perform
their missions, but also how to employ CLF supply ships providing logistics support for
these warships. He describes the general considerations for modeling logistics. Input
factors include: time, geographic regions, commodities (type of fuel, stores, and
ordinance), units, consumption factors and inventory thresholds. He also introduces
additional mission types not only for the CLF ships, but for the surface combatants that
could provide protection to CLF ships as escorts. The results of his work verify the
applicability of a practical decision aid to theater commanders as it was used in the
planning efforts during Trident Warrior 2009, a Navy’s Fleet Forces Command exercise.

6
 Pearlswig (2012) continues to improve the base NMP model by improving
runtimes and adding a heuristic algorithm to generate more high-quality routes not
realized through the limited enumeration routines in previous versions.

C. A DECISION AID FOR OPERATIONAL PLANNING

Wars are not necessarily fought with the constraint of a fixed time horizon to
complete a mission phase where the goal is to complete as many missions as possible.
Given a limited number of assets, it would be more realistic to complete each individual
mission in a mission phase as fast as possible in order to swiftly transition to the next
phase of the war. Knowing how long it could take to complete a mission phase is more
useful in determining feasibility in planning and can help in assessing risks associated
with employing a limited number of combatant ships. Additionally, with a limited
availability of surface combatant and CLF ships, and having a fixed set of mission
requirements as input in a fixed time horizon, end results can lead to infeasible solutions
in some planning scenarios, which is a limitation of previous models.

This research primarily focuses on the development of the Navy Operational

Planner (NOP), an optimization-based decision aid to support maritime operational
planning. Rather than trying to achieve as many missions as possible in a fixed time
horizon, NOP advises how to allocate multiple ships to multiple missions in order
accomplish those missions to a prescribed level of completion as quickly as possible, to
allow a transition to the next phase of a larger operation such as a war, or a large-scale
humanitarian aid and disaster relief operation.

7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

8
 II. NAVY OPERATIONAL PLANNER

Navy Operational Planner (NOP) uses an integer linear program to accomplish

missions as quickly as possible to transition from one mission phase to the next. The
criteria for transitioning between mission phases, level of effort, and mission degradation
have been developed and reinforced through discussions with an experienced Surface
Warfare Officer and operational planner (J. Kline, personal communication, August 27,
2014).

A. DESCRIPTION

Navy Operational Planner (NOP) considers 10 standard warfare mission types,

defined by Joint Publication 1–02 (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2010), as representative of the
potential requirements in maritime military operations. Refer to Appendix A for the
definition of each of these mission types. A mission is defined as a combination of
mission type with a location and specific data for that particular instance of that mission
type. A mission phase is defined as a set of required missions, some fraction of which
must be accomplished prior to transitioning to the next phase. NOP advises how to
allocate limited resources (in our case, surface combatant ships) to accomplish missions
as quickly as possible to transition from one mission phase to the next. A transition
between mission phases represents the accomplishment of one or more strategic goals
that allow commanders to start focusing on a new set of objectives, and depends on
completing, to some acceptable level, the missions in the current phase. This
“acceptable” level can account for different definitions of success for the strategic goals,
but at the very least needs to account for the level of effort applied toward each mission,
and for mission degradation in some cases where missions must be suspended
temporarily and other events (such as enemy activity) can undo some or all of the effort
towards completion in the meantime.

1. Mission Phase Transitions

A mission phase transition is dependent upon completion of some fraction of all

individual maritime missions defined for that particular phase. Defining what level of
9
completed maritime missions meets the criteria to allow us to transition to the next phase
is a key assumption in our model. The line that separates the end of the previous phase
and the start of the next phase is not necessarily clear and can be scenario dependent. For
example, the requirements for transitioning from a set of missions in one phase to those
in the next phase could be described quantitatively by any of the following alternatives:
• Every mission must be completed to 100 percent;

• A percentage, say 80 percent, of all missions are 100 percent completed;

• Every mission must be completed up to a certain accomplishment

threshold, say 0.85; or

• 100 percent of some missions are complete, while the remaining missions
are completed up to a defined accomplishment threshold, say 0.85.

The requirements for phase transition can easily be adjusted to account for each
alternative. For NOP, we establish the transition requirement to be that every mission
must be completed up to a mission-specific accomplishment threshold.

2. Level-of-Effort Curves

The application of effort of a ship on a mission contributes to mission completion.

When a mission is completed to an acceptable threshold, it will have had enough time
and effort spent to allow the ship(s) assigned to that mission to work on other missions or
transition to the next phase. A commander’s experience can also influence mission
completion thresholds. The variability in a commander’s definition of completion of
these missions can allow for some trade-off analysis and risk assessment.

A level-of-effort (LOE) curve provides a mapping between ship-days of effort and

the corresponding fraction of mission accomplishment. Each mission’s LOE curve will
depend on the particulars of the mission area being modeled. Figure 3 shows a specific
example of an LOE curve of a single ship conducting a mine countermeasures (MCM)
mission where ship-days of effort are applied towards mission accomplishment. A
horizontal line indicates a 0.85 threshold for mission accomplishment, meaning that 85
percent of the mines in that minefield have been cleared. The derivation of this LOE
curve is discussed in detail in Chapter III.
10
 )LJXUH  &KDUW VKRZLQJ /2( FXUYH IRU D VLQJOH VKLS FRQGXFWLQJ DQ 0&0
PLVVLRQ 7KH UHG KRUL]RQWDO GRWWHGOLQH LQGLFDWHV WKH  WKUHVKROG IRU
PLVVLRQ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW PHDQLQJ  SHUFHQW RI PLQHV LQ WKDW PLQHILHOG
KDYH EHHQ FOHDUHG $IWHU ILYH VKLSGD\V RI HIIRUW WKH /2( FXUYH
LQGLFDWHV WKDW  RI WKH PLVVLRQ ZLOO EH DFKLHYHG $IWHU  VKLSGD\V
RI HIIRUW WKH /2( FXUYH LQGLFDWHV ZH ZLOO KDYH UHDFKHG WKH FRPSOHWLRQ
WKUHVKROG RI  DFFRPSOLVKPHQW

,I HQRXJK HIIRUW KDV EHHQ DSSOLHG WR D VSHFLILHG PLVVLRQ FRPSOHWLRQ WKUHVKROG

WKHQ WKDW LQGLYLGXDO PLVVLRQ LV FRQVLGHUHG FRPSOHWH :LWK D  FRPSOHWLRQ WKUHVKROG
DIWHU  VKLSGD\V RI HIIRUW WKH PLVVLRQ FDQ EH FRQVLGHUHG FRPSOHWH $ VLQJOH VKLS FDQ
FRPSOHWH WKH PLVVLRQ WR WKH GHVLUHG WKUHVKROG LQ  GD\V DQG DGGLQJ DGGLWLRQDO VKLSV ZLOO
LQFUHDVH WKH UDWH RI SURJUHVV RQ WKH /2( FXUYH

 0LVVLRQ 'HJUDGDWLRQ

:H DFFRXQW IRU WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI PLVVLRQ GHJUDGDWLRQ RYHU WLPH ZKHQ D

SDUWLFXODU PLVVLRQ KDV EHHQ LQDFWLYH IRU D FHUWDLQ QXPEHU RI FRQVHFXWLYH SHULRGV
SRVVLEO\ ]HUR FDOOHG WKH FRROGRZQ IRU WKDW PLVVLRQ IRU HYHU\ SHULRG DIWHU WKH FRROGRZQ
LQ ZKLFK WKHUH LV QR HIIRUW SXW WRZDUGV WKH PLVVLRQ LW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH LGOH DQG WKH

total cumulative effort applied to the mission is reduced by a fixed number of ship-days
per idle period, called the erosion rate for that mission.

Each warfare mission can be defined as durable or non-durable. Durable

missions are missions that do not degrade after a reasonable period of inactivity within
the scope of a mission phase. The erosion rate for a durable mission is therefore zero.
Once a durable mission is completed, no further effort is required to be accomplished
given a period of inactivity. For example, a strike mission can be considered durable.
Once a target or capability is damaged or destroyed as a result of a strike mission, it
remains damaged or destroyed. Non-durable missions are missions that, if deemed
complete after reaching an LOE threshold, the cumulative effort applied previously
would degrade over time if the mission is in cooldown and continues to remain idle. If
the degradation of cumulative effort falls below the completion threshold, then that
mission is no longer considered complete and would require a ship to re-visit that mission
and apply enough effort to reach mission accomplishment again. An example of a non-
durable mission is a surface ship assigned to search for submarines to ensure a clear path
and safe passage for an aircraft carrier. Once the surface ship has completed the mission
and leaves the search area, the confidence that no submarine is in that area degrades with
time.

Figure 4 illustrates cumulative accomplishment for a notional non-durable

mission with a cooldown of three time periods. As continuous effort is applied in each
time period, cumulative accomplishment increases with a goal of completing the mission
when that cumulative accomplishment has met or exceed a given threshold. If the mission
is in cooldown, then the LOE towards cumulative accomplishment of that mission would
degrade each day it remains idle, which would require that mission to be re-visited and
ships be reallocated to work on it.

12
 )LJXUH  &KDUW VKRZLQJ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW RI D VLQJOH PLVVLRQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK
HIIRUW DSSOLHG WKURXJKRXW WKH WLPH KRUL]RQ RI WKH PRGHO &RQWLQXRXV
HIIRUW LV DSSOLHG LQ SHULRGV W W UHVXOWLQJ LQ D WRWDO FXPXODWLYH HIIRUW
RI   VKLSGD\V ZKLFK \LHOGV D IUDFWLRQDO PLVVLRQ
DFFRPSOLVKPHQW RI  1R HIIRUW RFFXUV LQ SHULRGV W DQG W EXW
EHFDXVH WKH FRROGRZQ LV WKUHH GD\V QR HIIRUW DQG WKHUHIRUH QR
DFFRPSOLVKPHQW LV ORVW 7KH PLVVLRQ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW WKUHVKROG RI 
LV PHW LQ SHULRG W &RROGRZQ RFFXUV RYHU SHULRGV W W 7KH PLVVLRQ
LV WKHUHIRUH FRQVLGHUHG LGOH LQ SHULRG W DQG GHJUDGDWLRQ RFFXUV DW W
DW DQ HURVLRQ UDWH RI WZR VKLSGD\V SHU LGOH SHULRG $IWHU SHULRG W
HQRXJK DFFRPSOLVKPHQW LV ORVW WR IDOO EHORZ WKH FRPSOHWLRQ WKUHVKROG
UHVXOWLQJ LQ DQ DOORFDWLRQ RI VKLSV LQ SHULRGV WW WR UHDFFRPSOLVK
WKH PLVVLRQ

,Q DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI DQ XQDYRLGDEOH FRROGRZQ SHULRG ZH PD\ DGYLVH WR FRPSOHWH

PRUH WKDQ WKH UHTXLUHG IUDFWLRQ RI DFFRPSOLVKPHQW IRU PLVVLRQ FRPSOHWLRQ WR PLWLJDWH WKH
HIIHFWV RI FRROGRZQ ,Q D PXOWLSOH PLVVLRQ VFHQDULR PLVVLRQ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW DQG
SRVVLEOH GHJUDGDWLRQ ZLOO RFFXU IRU HDFK PLVVLRQ ZLWK D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI DYDLODEOH VKLSV
7KH RSWLPDO DSSOLFDWLRQ RI HIIRUW RI D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI VKLSV WR D VHW RI PLVVLRQ
UHTXLUHPHQWV LV WKH FRUH RI WKLV PRGHO


% 0,66,21 $&&203/,6+0(17 02'(/

7KH IROORZLQJ VROYHV DQ RSHUDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ SUREOHP WR VXJJHVW KRZ WR

DFFRPSOLVK HQRXJK PLVVLRQV WR DGYDQFH WR WKH QH[W SKDVH RI WKH RSHUDWLRQ DV TXLFNO\ DV
SRVVLEOH 6KLSV ZLOO WDNH RQ PLVVLRQV EDVHG RQ WKHLU FDSDELOLWLHV :H DVVXPH WKDW DOO VKLSV
DUH FDSDEOH RI DFFRPSOLVKLQJ HDFK PLVVLRQ 7KH DFFRPSOLVKPHQW RI HDFK PLVVLRQ FDQ EH
DSSUR[LPDWHG E\ D OHYHORIHIIRUW /2( FXUYH XVLQJ D SLHFHZLVH OLQHDU FRQFDYH IXQFWLRQ
WKDW PDSV VKLSGD\V RI HIIRUW WR D IUDFWLRQDO PLVVLRQ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW YDOXH )LJXUH 
FDSWXUHV WKLV DSSUR[LPDWLRQ ,Q PRUH LQYROYHG PRGHOV D SDUWLFXODU PLVVLRQ FRXOG DOVR
LQFOXGH DGGLWLRQDO VSHFLILF GDWD VWDUW WLPHV ORFDWLRQ DQG SUHFHGHQFH UHODWLRQVKLSV
EHWZHHQ PLVVLRQV +HUH IRU LOOXVWUDWLRQ ZH VLPSO\ SURYLGH WKH WKUHVKROG HURVLRQ UDWH
FRROGRZQ WLPH DQG /2( FXUYH GDWD IRU HDFK PLVVLRQ

)LJXUH  &KDUW FDSWXULQJ /2( FXUYH GDWD IRU D PLVVLRQ P 1RWH WKDW EP 
(DFK VHJPHQW N RI WKH /2( FXUYH LV GHILQHG E\ WKH VORSH DPN DQG \
LQWHUFHSW EPN DQG DV EPN LQFUHDVHV DPN GHFUHDVHV 7KH VORSH DQG \
LQWHUFHSW DUH GHULYHG IURP WKH EDVHUDWH DQG ZRUNVL]H RI D PLVVLRQ


1. Sets and Indices [Cardinality]

m∈M Missions [~10]

k∈K Segments of the level-of-effort curve [~4]

t ∈T Time periods (alias t ′ ) [~30]

2. Data [Units]

threshm Threshold fraction required for accomplishing mission m

[0.0-1.0]

baseratem Base clearing rate for mission m [0.0-1.0]

work_sizem Ship days required for a complete pass on mission m [ship-

days]

am ,k Slope of level-of-effort curve on segment k of mission m

[0.0-1.0/ship-period]

bm ,k y-intercept of level-of-effort curve on segment k of mission

m [0.0-1.0]

erosionm Rate of loss of accomplishment per idle day for mission m

[ship-day/day]

cooldownm Consecutive days idle before any erosion occurs for

mission m [days]

max_effortm Maximum ship days of effort that can be put into mission m
[days]

shipst Number of ships available in period t [ships]

15
3. Decision Variables [Units]

ACCOMPm ,t Fraction of accomplishment of mission m in period t [0.0-

1.0]

CUM_EFFORTm ,t Cumulative net effort (effort – erosion) expended on

mission m in period t [ship-days]

EFFORTm ,t Ship days of effort expended on mission m in period t

[ship-days]

DONEm ,t Mission m completed by period t [binary]

WORKINGt Still working on at least one mission by period t [binary]

ACTIVEm ,t Mission m had ships assigned in period t [binary]

IDLEm ,t Mission m had no ships assigned in period t [binary]

IDLE_RESETm ,t Mission m has eroded below single period erosion amount

in period t [binary]

16
 4. Formulation

min ∑WORKING − ∑ (0.001) ACCOMP

t
t
m ,t
m ,t ( P0 )
s.t. ACCOMPm ,t ≤ am ,k CUM_EFFORTm ,t + bm ,k ∀m, t , k ( P1)
threshm DONEm ,t ≤ ACCOMPm ,t ∀m, t ( P2 )
+threshm (1 − WORKINGt −1 ) t >1

WORKINGt + DONEm ,t ≥ 1 ∀m, t ( P3)

∑ EFFORT
m
m ,t ≤ shipst ∀t ( P4 )
ACTIVEm ,t ≤ EFFORTm ,t ∀m, t (P 5)
IDLEm ,t ≥ 1 − ∑
t ′:t−cooldownm <t ′≤t
ACTIVEm ,t

− IDLE_RESETm ,t ∀m, t (P 6)
CUM_EFFORTm ,t ≤ max_effortm (1 − IDLE_RESETm ,t )
+erosionm ∀m, t (P 7)
CUM_EFFORTm ,t CUM_EFFORTm ,t −1 + EFFORTm ,t
=
−erosionm IDLEm,t ∀m, t (P 8)
0 ≤ ACCOMPm ,t ≤ 1 ∀m, t
EFFORTm ,t ≥ 0 ∀m, t
CUM_EFFORTm ,t ≥ 0 ∀m, t
DONEm ,t ∈ {0,1} ∀m, t
WORKINGt ∈ {0,1} ∀t
ACTIVEm ,t ∈ {0,1} ∀m, t
IDLEm ,t ∈ {0,1} ∀m, t
IDLE_RESETm ,t ∈ {0,1} ∀m, t

5. Discussion

Our objective (P0) calculates the number of periods required to achieve phase
completion, minus a small reward for accomplishing missions. The fraction of
accomplishment achieved for each mission in each time period is bounded (P1) by a
piecewise linear function of the cumulative ship-days of effort applied (Figure 5). Each
mission is considered complete (P2) only if enough accomplishment has been achieved to
meet the threshold. We continue to work on missions in each time period (P3) if any
17
mission is not yet complete. The total effort across all missions in each period cannot
exceed (P4) the number of ships available that period. Each mission can only be
considered being actively worked on (P5) when some effort has been expended on that
mission in each period. Each mission is considered idle (P6) unless there is at least one
ship expending effort in that time period or when the mission has eroded beyond a single
period erosion amount. When a mission has eroded beyond a single period erosion
amount (P7), cumulative effort cannot erode below zero. Cumulative effort in each period
is defined (P8) as the cumulative effort expended up to and including the previous period,
plus any effort expended in current period, minus any eroded effort as a result of being
idle.

18
 III. MINE WARFARE AND SCENARIO

The Navy Mission Planner (NMP) (Dugan, 2007), presents 10 mission types
listed in Appendix A. In a more complex model, multiple mission types can be
incorporated to account for a more complex scenario. We have thought through the
implications of each of these mission types, and ensured that our modeling example could
be extended to each of these. For the purposes of this thesis, we provide further detail
using only the mine countermeasures (MCM) mission type.

A. MINE WARFARE

Maritime mine warfare (MW) involves the strategic, operational and tactical
employment of sea mines and mine countermeasures (MCM) (Joint Chiefs of Staff,
2011a). It consists of mining, the physical placement of mines that will weaken the
capabilities of the enemy to conduct operations in all domains; and the countering of
enemy mining capability or the actual emplaced mines. Figure 6 summarizes the division
of MW and its various sub elements.

19
 Figure 6. Elements of mine warfare (from Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011a).

Without physically targeting the mines, a ship can counter mines that have
already been emplaced by reducing its electronic signature and susceptibility to actuating
the mine. In addition to this risk reduction, localization of safe transit routes or q-routes,
and the detection and avoidance of minefields are techniques known as passive MCM
(Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011a).

Active MCM may also be employed if passive efforts are not enough. Active
MCM involves the actual targeting of emplaced mines, either by destroying them or by
triggering them to explode (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011a). Two primary methods of active
MCM are minesweeping and mine hunting.

Mine hunting involves the use of air, surface, or subsurface sensors and
neutralization systems to detect and clear individual mines. It is used to confirm the
presence or absence of mines in a given area or when it is not feasible or desirable to

20
conduct minesweeping (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011a). Once a mine has been detected, the
mine can be neutralized by several methods: a remote mine neutralization vehicle
(MNV), an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) diver or marine mammal system. Mine
hunting is considered to pose less risk to MCM forces, offers more thorough coverage of
minefields and provides a higher probability of detection than minesweeping.

Minesweeping involves the use of a towed mechanical or influence sweep system

by a surface vessel or aircraft (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011a). A mechanical sweep system
uses special cables to cut moored mines so they would float to the surface for EOD divers
to neutralize. Influence sweep systems tow specialized devices that emulate a ship’s
acoustic and magnetic signature to actuate influence mines.

B. MCM ANALYSIS

For modeling maritime mission accomplishment, we derive our analysis using the
MW mission type, specifically mine hunting MCM. An LOE curve would be built for
each other mission type in a similar fashion. Similar decisions about mission durability
and the effects of mission degradation on non-durable missions would also have to be
made for each maritime mission.

1. LOE Curve Derivation

For the mine hunting MCM mission, we assume a uniform distribution of mines
and the detection and neutralization of individual mines are included in the search times.
Given a probability of detection, say 0.6, we assume a deterministic search pattern, so
when an MCM-capable ship has made its first pass through a minefield, it will have
detected and neutralized 60 percent of the mines. The minefield’s area and an MCM
ship’s search speed and width is used to calculate how long it may take to achieve a
certain level of clearance, defined as the fraction of mines in the minefield that have been
cleared. The combined effort of multiple minesweepers would reduce the overall time
proportional to the number of ships conducting the mission.

As previously shown, Figure 3 presents a specific example of an LOE curve

derived for a single ship conducting an MCM mission. This MCM mission assumes ship

21
 parameters and a minefield area summarized in Table 1. A single MCM ship is tasked to
conduct a deterministic exhaustive search over a minefield of area A (18.6 square
nautical miles). Using an exhaustive search equation for a uniformly distributed target,
T = A / VW (Washburn, 2002), it takes five days for a single complete pass through the
minefield. The probability of detection in a deterministic search will be the rate at which
mines are being cleared in a single pass; we refer to this as the base-rate. Given a base-
rate of 0.6, the search results in detection and clearance of 60 percent of potential mines
in the field after a single pass. After a second pass, it takes an additional five days to
neutralize 60 percent of the remaining 40 percent of the mines, and so forth. If the level
of clearance reaches the threshold for completing an MCM mission, then the mission is
considered complete and the minesweeper can work on another mission, if any remain
that have not been accomplished to their required threshold.

Table 1. MCM ship’s search parameters and minefield area. An MCM ship has a
search speed V in nautical miles per hour (kts), search width W in nautical
miles (NM) and base-rate. The area A of the minefield is in square NMs.
Search Speed (kts) = V 5
Search Width (NM) = W 0.028
Area (sq. NM) = A 18.6
Base-rate 0.6

Information from the LOE curve provides parameter inputs for the model to
accomplish an MCM mission. The time it takes for a single complete pass, or work-size,
is calculated from the minefield’s area. If the minefield’s work-size is five, it takes five
ship-days for one pass, the base-rate parameter specifies the clearance proportion for each
pass. Consequently, a base-rate of 0.6 means that 60 percent of the mines are detected
and cleared on each full 5-day pass.

22
 2. Mine Countermeasures Mission Durability

MCM missions are non-durable. If ships with mine detecting and/or clearing
capability have completed their MCM mission, those ships can potentially be reassigned
to start working on other missions in another location. If no additional ships arrive in the
location where mines have been cleared to conduct any follow-on missions and a period
of inactivity past the cooldown period has elapsed, we assume that the mines can be
reconstituted by the enemy. If ships with a mission requiring operations in that mine-
cleared location do not resume their work in that location before the end of the cooldown,
the MCM mission would eventually degrade below the completion threshold and must be
re-visited, because it is no longer a completed mission.

C. SCENARIO RESULTS

The model was implemented using GAMS (GAMS Development Corporation,

2014) and solved using IBM’s CPLEX solver (IBM, 2014). All model runs were
conducted using a 2.16Ghz Intel Celeron Asus notebook with 4.0 GB of RAM, running
the Windows 8 operating system. Our main scenario model has 3001 equations and 2131
variables, 1530 of which are binary. The model formulation for our main scenario solves
within 0.062 seconds.

An unclassified scenario involving a notional series of operational events

surrounding the Korean Peninsula area of operations (AO) is used as a test demonstration
for the model. The Korean Peninsula scenario has been adopted and refined through
several legacy theses previously mentioned (Silva, 2009). Figure 7 shows the AO focused
on the Korean Peninsula.

23
 Figure 7. Map of the Korean Peninsula area of operations (after Google Maps,
2015).

Each model assessment represents a mission phase where there are more missions
(minefields) than ships available. For each assessment, we assume the same search speed,
search width and base-rate previously summarized in Table 1, for each MCM ship. We
also assume several variables for each mission to be constant: threshold of completion at
0.85, cooldown of three periods and a base-rate of 0.60.

The output of each assessment reveals the minimum amount of time it would take
to complete all missions in that phase and transition to the next phase. The output also
provides the status of each mission as it progresses through each time period. The
parameters we vary include the number of minefields, the number of ships available in
each time period, the erosion rate, and the minefield’s size (work-size), or the time it
takes to make a single complete pass. As previously shown in Figure 3, the minefield’s

24
 size and an MCM ship’s search profile can be used to determine the minefield’s work-
size.

The number of time periods is also varied, but only to allow for feasibility.
Adding additional time periods will not change the solution, but will allow a solution to
be found. This is an important consideration, because we cannot reckon a priori how long
a complex war plan will take to prosecute, if it can be prosecuted at all. Thus, we are not
constrained to a fixed time horizon.

1. Initial Assessment

In the initial assessment, we test a simple case where there are seven ships
available in each time period tasked to 10 MCM missions. Half of the minefields have a
work-size of one and the other half have a work-size of two. The erosion rate is set to
0.05 and a summary of all parameters are provided in Table 2

Table 2. Initial assessment parameters. We have seven ships available in each time
period to work on 10 missions in a 20 period time horizon. The mission
work-sizes are split where half have a work-size of one and the other half
have a work-size of two. The erosion rate is 0.05.
Time periods 20
Ships 7 in all periods
Erosion 0.05

Minefields work_size
m1 1
m2 1
m3 1
m4 1
m5 1
m6 2
m7 2
m8 2
m9 2
m10 2

25
 The initial assessment obtains a solution that achieves phase transition by the end
of period t6. The output in Table 3 is organized by time periods and summarizes each
mission’s status at the end of the period t6.

Table 3. Initial assessment output for period t6. The EFFORT column shows how
many ship-days of effort is applied to each mission at period t6. The
ACCOMP column shows the cumulative accomplishment based on the
effort applied by those ships up to the end of period t6. Each mission has
reached the completion threshold of 0.85 by the end of period t6. They are
all flagged completed as indicated in the DONE column and phase
transition can now occur.
PERIOD MISSION EFFORT CUM_EFFORT ACCOMP DONE
t6 m1 0.0 3.0 0.94 1.0
t6 m2 0.0 3.0 0.94 1.0
t6 m3 0.0 3.0 0.94 1.0
t6 m4 1.0 4.0 0.97 1.0
t6 m5 1.0 4.0 0.97 1.0
t6 m6 1.0 5.0 0.89 1.0
t6 m7 1.0 5.0 0.89 1.0
t6 m8 1.0 5.0 0.89 1.0
t6 m9 1.0 5.0 0.89 1.0
t6 m10 1.0 5.0 0.89 1.0

Table 4 presents a different organization of the output. It provides the status of a

single mission (m10) as it progresses through each time period.

26
Table 4. Initial assessment output for mission m10. As effort is applied in each
time period, the ACCOMP column shows the cumulative accomplishment
achieved. Completion is accomplished in period t6 when the mission
reaches 0.85 accomplishment. There is no ship effort applied periods t2
and t3, but the mission does not go idle because no cooldown occurs has
activity resumes in period t4.

MISSION PERIOD EFFORT CUM_EFFORT ACCOMP DONE IDLE

m10 t1 2.0 2.0 0.60 0.0 0.0
m10 t2 0.0 2.0 0.60 0.0 0.0
m10 t3 0.0 2.0 0.60 0.0 0.0
m10 t4 2.0 4.0 0.84 0.0 0.0
m10 t5 0.0 4.0 0.84 0.0 0.0
m10 t6 1.0 5.0 0.89 1.0 0.0

Because the work-sizes of each mission are relatively small in this phase, the
amount of time it takes to complete all missions is relatively short, finishing by period t6.
We do not observe any ships going idle, however, if there was no activity in period t4,
then we would have been in cooldown where we may observe mission degradation.

2. Second Assessment

In the second assessment, we vary the number of available ships in each time
period and each mission’s work-size to provide more insightful results. We decrease the
total number of ships in each time period and define a mix of mission work-sizes as
summarized in Table 5.

27
Table 5. Second assessment parameters. We increase some of the minefield work-
sizes and reduce the number of ships available in each time period. The
number of time periods is also increased to have a fewer number of ships
accomplish missions where work-sizes are larger.
Time periods 30
Ships 4 in all periods
Erosion 0.05

Minefields work_size
m1 5
m2 5
m3 5
m4 5
m5 5
m6 5
m7 4
m8 3
m9 2
m10 1

For this scenario we have fewer ships, and larger work-sizes for some of the
minefields. It is not surprising that completion of all missions and the resulting phase
transition takes longer, occurring at the end of period t24. Table 6 shows the status of
mission m10 in each period. In this case, there are several instances where cooldown
occurs, causing the mission to be flagged as idle and degradation in cumulative
accomplishment.

28
Table 6. Second assessment output for mission m10. In periods t5 and t15, we
observe the first and second instances where the mission is idle, as
indicated in the IDLE column. As a result, we observe degradation of
cumulative effort in the CUM_EFFORT column and subsequent decrease
in accomplishment as shown in the ACCOMP column each period the
mission is in an idle state.
MISSION PERIOD EFFORT CUM_EFFORT ACCOMP DONE IDLE
m10 t1 1 1 0.6 0 0
m10 t2 1 2 0.84 0 0
m10 t3 0 2 0.84 0 0
m10 t4 0 2 0.84 0 0
m10 t5 0 1.95 0.828 0 1
m10 t6 0 1.9 0.816 0 1
m10 t7 0 1.85 0.804 0 1
m10 t8 0 1.8 0.792 0 1
m10 t9 0 1.75 0.78 0 1
m10 t10 0 1.7 0.768 0 1
m10 t11 0 1.65 0.756 0 1
m10 t12 1 2.65 0.9024 0 0
m10 t13 0 2.65 0.9024 0 0
m10 t14 0 2.65 0.9024 0 0
m10 t15 0 2.6 0.8976 0 1
m10 t16 0 2.55 0.8928 0 1
m10 t17 0 2.5 0.888 0 1
m10 t18 1 3.5 0.9552 0 0
m10 t19 0 3.5 0.9552 0 0
m10 t20 0 3.5 0.9552 0 0
m10 t21 1 4.5 0.9936 0 0
m10 t22 0 4.5 0.9936 0 0
m10 t23 0 4.5 0.9936 0 0
m10 t24 0 4.45 0.99168 1 1

When comparing the notional mission’s cumulative accomplishment with

degradation, presented earlier in Figure 4, Figure 8 illustrates similar behavior using the
output of our second assessment. In periods t1 and t2, one ship-day of effort is applied
and cumulative accomplishment reaches 0.84. Accomplishment remains the same for the
next two periods of inactivity. From period t5 - t11, the number of contiguous periods of
mission inactivity has exceeded the cooldown period and now the mission is in an idle
state. We observe the declining slope of accomplishment up until ship effort resumes in

29
SHULRG W 7KH DFFRPSOLVKPHQW WKUHVKROG LV QRZ UHDFKHG DQG FRQWLQXHV WR VWD\ DERYH
WKDW WKUHVKROG WKURXJKRXW WKH SKDVH

)LJXUH  &KDUW VKRZLQJ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW RI PLVVLRQ P RI VHFRQG

DVVHVVPHQW RXWSXW &RQWLQXRXV HIIRUW LV DSSOLHG LQ SHULRGV W DQG W DQG
FXPXODWLYH DFFRPSOLVKPHQW UHDFKHV  &RROGRZQ RFFXUV RYHU
SHULRGV WW 7KH PLVVLRQ LV QRZ LQ DQ LGOH VWDWH DQG GHJUDGDWLRQ
RFFXUV DW WKH VWDUW RI SHULRG W $FWLYLW\ UHVXPHV LQ SHULRG W DQG
FXPXODWLYH DFFRPSOLVKPHQW KDV UHDFKHG WKH FRPSOHWLRQ WKUHVKROG

,Q WKLV DVVHVVPHQW PLVVLRQ P KDV D ZRUNVL]H RI RQH 7KH VROXWLRQ DOORZV
PLVVLRQ P WR JR LGOH LQ WKLV VFHQDULR EHFDXVH OHVV HIIRUW LV UHTXLUHG WR UHDFK WKH
DFFRPSOLVKPHQW WKUHVKROG LQ D VPDOOHU PLQHILHOG 7KH DELOLW\ WR UHFRYHU IURP D GHFOLQLQJ
VORSH RI DFFRPSOLVKPHQW WR UHDFK WKH DFFRPSOLVKPHQW WKUHVKROG LV IDVWHU IRU D VPDOO
PLQHILHOG )URP WKLV VROXWLRQ ZH PD\ UHFRPPHQG PLVVLRQV RQ ZKLFK WR IRFXV RXU HIIRUW
EDVHG RQ WKH ZRUNVL]H RI WKH PLQHILHOGV


 3. Third Assessment

In the third assessment, we increase the mission accomplishment erosion rate, and
change the number of ships available in each time period so that the number of ships is
no longer constant. The breakdown of ships available in each period is shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Third assessment parameters. We increase the mission accomplishment

erosion rate, and change the number of ships available in each time period
so that the number of ships is no longer constant. There are four ships
available in periods t1 – t15 and three ships in periods t16 – t30.
Time periods 30
Ships 4 in periods 1-15,
3 in period 16-30
Erosion 0.1

Minefields work_size
m1 3
m2 3
m3 3
m4 5
m5 7
m6 7
m7 6
m8 4
m9 3
m10 3

Having a different number of ships available from one time period to the next
may represent an operational scenario where a ship is reallocated to work on a more
emergent mission or an anticipation of future phase duties calls for an early departure
from the current phase. The completion of all missions in this assessment allows for a
phase transition to occur at the end of period t26. There are similar results to the prior,
second assessment, where we observe instances where idle states occur in only the
relatively smaller minefields, namely minefields m1 – m3, and m8 – m10, where their
work-sizes are three or four.

31
 )LJXUH  FDSWXUHV KRZ VKLS DFWLYLW\ LV VSUHDG WKURXJKRXW WKH HQWLUH SKDVH IRU HDFK
PLVVLRQ 0XOWLSOH VKLSV PD\ EH DVVLJQHG WR D VLQJOH PLQHILHOG LQ DQ\ JLYHQ SHULRG $V
SUHYLRXVO\ REVHUYHG LGOLQJ RFFXUV ZKHUH WKH PLVVLRQ ZRUNVL]HV DUH UHODWLYHO\ VPDOOHU

)LJXUH  &KDUW VKRZLQJ VKLS DFWLYLW\ WKURXJKRXW WKH SKDVH 7KH VROLG JUHHQ
EDUV UHSUHVHQW KRZ HIIRUW LV DSSOLHG E\ WKH VKLSV LQ HDFK PLVVLRQ ,Q
SHULRGV W W DW PRVW VHYHQ VKLSV FDQ EH DFWLYH ,Q SHULRGV W W
ZKHQ WKHUH DUH RQO\ WZR VKLSV DYDLODEOH WKHUH DUH DW PRVW WZR VKLSV
ZRUNLQJ 7KH FURVVKDVKHG UHG EDUV LQGLFDWH ZKHQ HDFK PLVVLRQ KDV
JRQH LGOH DQG /2( WRZDUGV PLVVLRQ DFFRPSOLVKPHQW LV GHJUDGLQJ


 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

A. SUMMARY

We present NOP as a decision support aid to complement manual operational

planning efforts. NOP suggests the minimum amount of time for a phase transition by
accomplishing missions as quickly as possible. Knowing how long it takes for a mission
phase transition is more useful in determining feasible courses of action in planning and
can help in assessing risks associated with depending on too few combatant ships.

We define and establish proof of concept for the use of mission level-of-effort
(LOE) curves, assumptions of mission degradation parameters and accomplishment
thresholds to determine how long it takes complete a mission. We then use that
information as input to NOP in order to determine the amount of time required to
transition to the next mission phase.

B. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

1. In-Depth Analysis in Other Mission Warfare Areas

Analysis of only the MW mission type, specifically, mine-hunting MCM

missions, limits the potential mix of warfare missions in a mission phase to realize the
complexity of maritime operational planning. Establishing similar LOE curves, mission
degradation parameters and assumptions of accomplishment thresholds through the use if
tactical analysis for each maritime mission is the next logical step in improving the model
and adding fidelity to this decision aid.

2. Scenario Integration with NMP

NMP divides the area of operations (AO) into regions. The integration between
NMP and NOP considers distances between missions and mission phases. It should
include multi-mission-capable ships and multi-mission requirements with their inherent
interdependencies. It should also incorporate concurrent mission capable sets or sets of
maritime missions that a ship can execute simultaneously (Dugan, 2007). Incorporating

33
the embellishments of NOP into the generality of NMP would contribute greatly to the
evolution of Navy mission planning.

3. Adding a Logistics Component

Just as NMP was enhanced to take into account the logistics requirements from
CLF ships, including similar logistics planning capability for NOP would be a major
enhancement to the model. Deriving LOE curves for missions associated with logistics
replenishments would add depth to the inherent characteristics of maritime operations.

34
 APPENDIX

A. USE OF MISSION DEFINITIONS

The following is the definition of mission types as published by Silva, minus the
Submarine Intelligence Collection mission (Silva, 2009, Chapter IV, Section A, Part 1). It
is used as a reference for the mission types we have considered in this research, but not
explicitly included here. (i.e., we have thought through the implications of each of these
mission types, and ensured that our modeling example could be extended to each of
these).

B. MISSION TYPES

Acronyms or abbreviations in parenthesis denote NMP notation. Joint Publication

1–02 (Joints Chiefs of Staff, 2010) defines the following mission, except as otherwise
noted:
1. Air Defense (AD)
Air defense measures are designed to destroy attacking enemy aircraft or missiles
in the atmosphere, or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attack. We consider air
defense separately from missile defense.
2. Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD)
A ballistic missile is any missile which does not rely upon aerodynamic surfaces
to produce lift and consequently follows a ballistic trajectory when thrust is terminated.

Missile defense is defensive measures designed to destroy attacking enemy

missiles, or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attack.

We use the term TBMD to describe the naval mission of providing ballistic
missile defense to a theater of operations.
3. Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW)
Antisubmarine warfare operations are operations conducted with the intention of
denying the enemy the effective use of submarines.
4. Surface Warfare (SUW)
35
 Surface warfare is the portion of maritime warfare in which operations are
conducted to destroy or neutralize enemy naval surface forces and merchant vessels.
5. Strike
A Strike mission involves an attack to damage or destroy an objective or a
capability. Naval fire resources are sea based or sea supported, and include Navy and
Marine Corps lethal and nonlethal air-delivered weapons, maritime-based gunfire and
land-attack missiles, and maritime-based naval special warfare units. (NWP 3–09, 2011)
6. Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS)
Naval surface fire support is fire provided by Navy surface gun and missile
systems in support of a unit or units.
7. Maritime Interception Operations (MIO)
Maritime interception operations involve efforts to monitor, query, and board
merchant vessels in international waters to enforce sanctions against other nations such as
those in support of United Nations Security Council Resolutions and/or prevent the
transport of restricted goods.
8. Mine Countermeasures (MCM)
Mine countermeasures are all methods for preventing or reducing damage or
danger from mines.
9. Mine Warfare (MW)
Mine warfare is the strategic, operational, and tactical use of mines and mine
countermeasures. Mine warfare is divided into two basic subdivisions: the laying of
mines to degrade the enemy’s capabilities to wage land, air, and maritime warfare; and
the countering of enemy-laid mines to permit friendly maneuver or use of selected land or
sea areas.
10. Intelligence Collection (INTEL)
Intelligence missions involve the collection of available information concerning
foreign nations, hostile or potentially hostile forces or elements, or areas of actual or
potential operations.

36
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Brown, G.G., Carlyle, M.W. (2008). “Optimizing the U.S. Navy’s combat logistics
force.” Naval Research Logistics, 55(8), 800–810. doi: 10.1002/nav.20318

Brown, G.G., Carlyle, M.W., and Burson, P. (2010). Replenishment at sea planner
(RASP) model. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. (2011). Navy strike
and fire support (NWP 3–09.1). Washington, DC: Author.

Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (2013a). Navy planning
(NWP 5–01). Washington, DC: Author.

Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (2013b) Maritime
operations center (NTTP 3–32.1). Washington, DC: Author.

Dugan, K. (2007). Navy mission planner (master’s thesis). Retrieved from Calhoun
http://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/3317

GAMS Development Corporation (2014). General algebraic modeling system [Computer

software]. Retrieved from http://gams.com/download/

Google Maps. (2015). Korean Peninsula. [Map]. Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/maps/search/Korean+Peninsula/@38.007845,127.66661
85,6z/data=!3m1!4b1

Hallman, F. (2009). Optimizing operational and logistical planning in a theater of

operations. (master’s thesis). Retrieved from Calhoun
https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/4772

IBM. (2014). ILOG CPLEX [Computer software]. Retrieved from

http://www.ilog.com/products/cplex/.

Joint Chiefs of Staff (2010). Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and

Associated Terms, Joint Publication 1–02 (amended 2014).

Joint Chiefs of Staff (2011a). Barriers, Obstacles, and Mine Warfare for Joint Operations,
Joint Publication 3–15.

Joint Chiefs of Staff (2011b). Joint Operation Planning, Joint Publication 5–0.

Joint Chiefs of Staff (2011c). Joint Operations, Joint Publication 3–0.

37
Pearlswig, B. C. (2012). Heuristic route generation for the navy mission planner.
(master’s thesis). Retrieved from Calhoun
https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/37690

Silva, R. (2009). Optimizing multi-ship, multi-mission operational planning for the joint
force maritime component commander. (master’s thesis). Retrieved from Calhoun
https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/4903

Stewart, K. A. (2013). NPS developed replenishment at sea program could save millions.
Retrieved from http://www.nps.edu/About/News/NPS-Developed-Replenishment-
at-Sea-Program-Could-Save-Millions.html

Washburn, A. (2002). Search and Detection (4th ed.). Linthicum, MD: Institute for
Operations Research and the Management Sciences. 1–1 –1-2

38
 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1. Defense Technical Information Center

Ft. Belvoir, Virginia

2. Dudley Knox Library

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California

39